C San Miguel1, D Melero2, E Jiménez2, P López2, Á Robin2, L A Blázquez2, J López-Monclús3, E González2, C Jiménez2, M Á García-Ureña2. 1. General and Digestive Surgery Department, Henares University Hospital, Francisco de Vitoria University, Coslada, Madrid, Spain. sanmiguel.carlos@gmail.com. 2. General and Digestive Surgery Department, Henares University Hospital, Francisco de Vitoria University, Coslada, Madrid, Spain. 3. General and Digestive Surgery Department, Puerta de Hierro University Hospital, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of incisional hernias (IHs) is still high after midline laparotomy (ML). There is an increasing body of evidence that prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) can be safe and efficient in the short-term outcomes, but there still are some concerns about the potential long-term complications of these meshes. This study describes our long-term PMP experience. METHODS: Observational and prospective study including all patients undergoing the use of prophylactic onlay large-pore polypropylene meshes for the closure of ML since 2008 to 2014. Outcome measures included demographics, perioperative details, wound complications, recurrences, reoperations and chronic complications. RESULTS: A cohort of 172 patients was analysed: 75% elective surgery, 25% emergency cases. Mean age was 68 years with mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.6 kg/m2. Wound classification: 6.4% clean; 85% clean-contaminated; 1.2% contaminated and 8.1% dirty. Follow-up of patients was up to 8 years (mean: 5 ± 1.6). Two meshes were removed due to chronic infection in first six postoperative months. Of the 13 patients (9.02%) who developed IH, 5 of them have been reoperated for IH repair without any difficulty related to previous mesh. During follow-up, 8 patients have been reoperated for other reasons and the integrity of abdominal wall was also checked. After the comparative study, higher BMI and emergency surgery were still risk factors for IH despite PMP. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, the use of polypropylene prophylactic meshes in MLs is safe, efficient and durable.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of incisional hernias (IHs) is still high after midline laparotomy (ML). There is an increasing body of evidence that prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) can be safe and efficient in the short-term outcomes, but there still are some concerns about the potential long-term complications of these meshes. This study describes our long-term PMP experience. METHODS: Observational and prospective study including all patients undergoing the use of prophylactic onlay large-pore polypropylene meshes for the closure of ML since 2008 to 2014. Outcome measures included demographics, perioperative details, wound complications, recurrences, reoperations and chronic complications. RESULTS: A cohort of 172 patients was analysed: 75% elective surgery, 25% emergency cases. Mean age was 68 years with mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.6 kg/m2. Wound classification: 6.4% clean; 85% clean-contaminated; 1.2% contaminated and 8.1% dirty. Follow-up of patients was up to 8 years (mean: 5 ± 1.6). Two meshes were removed due to chronic infection in first six postoperative months. Of the 13 patients (9.02%) who developed IH, 5 of them have been reoperated for IH repair without any difficulty related to previous mesh. During follow-up, 8 patients have been reoperated for other reasons and the integrity of abdominal wall was also checked. After the comparative study, higher BMI and emergency surgery were still risk factors for IH despite PMP. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, the use of polypropylene prophylactic meshes in MLs is safe, efficient and durable.
Authors: Zachary M Borab; Sameer Shakir; Michael A Lanni; Michael G Tecce; John MacDonald; William W Hope; John P Fischer Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Eva B Deerenberg; Joris J Harlaar; Ewout W Steyerberg; Harold E Lont; Helena C van Doorn; Joos Heisterkamp; Bas Pl Wijnhoven; Willem R Schouten; Huib A Cense; Hein Bac Stockmann; Frits J Berends; F Paul Hlj Dijkhuizen; Roy S Dwarkasing; An P Jairam; Gabrielle H van Ramshorst; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: K Itatsu; Y Yokoyama; G Sugawara; H Kubota; Y Tojima; Y Kurumiya; H Kono; H Yamamoto; M Ando; M Nagino Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Irfan A Rhemtulla; Charles A Messa; Fabiola A Enriquez; William W Hope; John P Fischer Journal: Surg Clin North Am Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Jacobus W A Burger; Roland W Luijendijk; Wim C J Hop; Jens A Halm; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Johannes Jeekel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: B East; J Woleský; R Divín; M Otáhal; K Vocetková; V Sovková; V H Blahnová; M Koblížek; P Kubový; A Nečasová; A Staffa; A Ch de Beaux; J Lorenzová; E Amler Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: F Pianka; A Werba; R Klotz; F Schuh; E Kalkum; P Probst; A Ramouz; E Khajeh; M W Büchler; J C Harnoss Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 2.920
Authors: E E Lozada-Hernández; J C Mayagoitía-González; R L Smolinski-Kurek; L Montiel-Hinojosa; L Hernández-Villegas; J M Morales-Vargas; K D Pérez-Sánchez; A Orozco-Mosqueda; M Cano-Rosas Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: A Bravo-Salva; N Argudo-Aguirre; A M González-Castillo; E Membrilla-Fernandez; J J Sancho-Insenser; L Grande-Posa; M Pera-Román; J A Pereira-Rodríguez Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: S Valverde; M A Arbós; M T Quiles; E Espín; J L Sánchez-Garcia; V Rodrigues; J A Pereira; R Villalobos; J M García-Alamino; M Armengol; M López-Cano Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 2.920
Authors: Andrew S Miller; Kathryn Boyce; Benjamin Box; Matthew D Clarke; Sarah E Duff; Niamh M Foley; Richard J Guy; Lisa H Massey; George Ramsay; Dominic A J Slade; James A Stephenson; Phil J Tozer; Danette Wright Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 3.917